[aur-general] TU Application -Thomas Hatch

Kaiting Chen kaitocracy at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 14:37:42 EST 2011

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hijack away, as long as I get the vote :)
> So the big difference with MooseFS is that it will run on commodity
> hardware
> and can be set up by a monkey.
> So you don't need hardware HPC equipment, just a bunch of computers with
> hard drives. This means it can scale and works well for both small and very
> large deployments.
> I set it up to test it on just a couple of virtual machines and it ran like
> a dream, and it also runs like a dream on my company's 165 TB setup
> supporting over 12 million files.
> There are a lot of other differences, but all in all, MooseFS is much MUCH
> more KISS than Lustre, effectively delivers the same product, is very fast
> for a distributed file system and is a snap to set up!
> Grab a couple of machines and try it out!

Oh God it's FUSE. One more question then, how does it compare with
GlusterFS? Which is also easy to set up, runs on FUSE, and can use commodity
hardware. Thanks, --Kaiting.

Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

More information about the aur-general mailing list